I am not responsible for your actions nor for helping you to gain absolution or forgiveness. If you lack the self-awareness to realize what you’ve said or have a such a poor memory that you can’t remember from one comment to the next, then perhaps you should be tending to those issues rather than arguing with strangers online.
In your very first comment on this post, you clearly lay out the risk (and hopeful outcome).
As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.
Seems like your memory problems are getting worse… too bad you don’t have health insurance, or you could go see a doctor to have that checked out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, in addition to your evident memory problems, you have sadistic fantasies in which you imagine the people you lose arguments to in “anguish”? Yikes! Too bad about that health insurance you don’t have, as you’d be able to talk about that with a therapist.
Shouldn’t have gambled your health on your ignorance of what insurance is and what the word “gambling” mean… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You told me I was personally attacking you so I figured it must be a big deal to you if you are bringing it up.
I keep mentioning it because you keep doing it. I am not responsible for your actions, so it pretty absurd to blame me for the things you keep doing— especially when you put the responsibility of doing the work to address it on me.
But you won’t tell me what I did that you feel was attacking you so I can apologize to you and not repeat the words
Perhaps you shouldn’t have gambled on personally attacking me if you don’t like the outcome.
that are causing you as much anguish.
You seem to be obsessed with imagining me in “anguish”. Do you often fantasize about strangers in anguish? Do such thoughts give you pleasure? They must because you can’t seem to stop…
Gee, those memory problems seem to be getting worse. Seems pretty foolish to have gambled on not getting health insurance when you appear to be in such need.
I asked about your usage of the quotation marks because it seems like you feel like my beliefs are less then.
A straw man and deflection. Your insecurities about your “beliefs” has nothing to do with health insurance.
This is totally bringing me back to my Reddit days, so thank you for that!
Yeah, people here usually don’t use so many obvious logical fallacies and circular arguments like you do. Most people know better.
You’re expressing your anguish and redefining everything to gambling again.
Once again, I don’t define words, the dictionary does. I simply used the word “gambling” correctly. Blaming me for using a word correctly is irrational.
It’s like our whole conversation distilled into one sentence
And that sentence is: Your “beliefs” are based on ignorance, and you keep attacking everyone who points that out rather than to simply admit that you’re wrong.
My belief in Christianity says that gambling is a sin and that why I dont use insurance.
So how is it a straw man argument or irrelevant subject?
Considering that you only mentioned this in response to my pointing out that your “beliefs” in Christianity are irrelevant to a debate over health insurance is gambling, it’s pretty clear that you’re lying in order to conflate the two.
And, considering how obviously dishonest you’ve been in almost every comment you’ve made here, my conclusion that you’d resort to lying rather than lose an argument is well-supported by the available evidence.
Once again (because of your amnesia), I don’t define words. The dictionary does. Children understand this concept. Why do you struggle so much with it?
And of you don’t know what the words “friendly” and “debate” mean, then you shouldn’t be using them in a sentence.
As for this “anguish” you keep fantasizing about, you really should see a doctor about that.
Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity is related to truth. The fallacy is the opposite of an appeal to the minority.
A psychotherapist would be able to help you with your fantasizing that internet strangers that hurt your feelings are, themselves, feeling the “anguish” you feel.
Psychologists call it “projection”.
And if you hadn’t gambled your health and well-being on not getting health insurance, you wouldn’t have to pay so much for that therapy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
but you have said that I attacked you personally but your unwilling to say where or how.
I said every time I pointed out your ad hominem attacks. Your lack of/inability to understand is at the core of this debate, and still not my fault (nor my responsibility). Your failures are your own responsibility as are your foolish decisions when you gamble your health, well-being, and financial future by not getting health insurance.
It’s pretty irrational to blame others for your own words and actions.
I already answered this, but since you seem to have a terrible case of amnesia, here is the answer again:
you’re spreading false information (your “beliefs”) as fact which could be harmful to others if they’re foolish enough to believe you. I don’t have to gain something in return just to do the right thing by posting the correct information in response. Life isn’t some zero-sum game where I have to be motivated by personal gain simply to do the right thing or because your feelings got hurt.
You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.
It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.
You lashing out with personal attacks when met with facts that debunk your beliefs is not the fault of others. And when you falsely perceive others as feeling the “anguish” (the word you chose) that you, yourself, feel in these moments, that’s psychological projection.
Nobody else is to blame for your inability to process rejection and the upending of your “beliefs” in a healthy manner; it’s yours and yours alone. Too bad you gambled your health and well-being on not getting health insurance, or you’d be able to work through such difficult emotions with a therapist.
You made this very clear, from the start, that this is - and always has been - about your “beliefs”. I have merely stated (and re-stated and re-stated) facts. Whether you believe those facts is irrelevant, and I don’t really care. I’m pretty sure that you’re so invested in your “beliefs” that no amount of facts would ever change your mind.
And I’m not here to change your mind— just to keep pointing out how, when, and why you’re wrong. See… I have no emotional investment here because these aren’t my “beliefs”…. They’re yours.
But I’m not trying to forcibly change your mind because I respect your freedom to make objectively wrong choices for yourself.
There’s that amnesia again! I just said that I’m not trying to change your mind, that I don’t care what you believe, and that I don’t even think I could change your mind if I tried because of how emotionally invested you are in them— hence your lashing out when they’re challenged.
I also clearly said that you’re free to your “beliefs”— but the facts and evidence contradict them. You have chosen to lash out because you object to me pointing that out.
Not a gamble that’s paid off for you, I would say…
There’s that amnesia again! You asked and I answered this question an hour ago:
You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.
It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.
In the past three or so minutes since your last comment? That’s an obvious lie.
Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it
I have. There’s that amnesia again!
and I ask for it again or more
Which is exactly what you keep doing
not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.
This is a scenario that you just invented and which didn’t happen. The evidence in the comments here confirms this. Your failure to accept the evidence and the fact is not evidence that I did not present facts and evidence. You’re in inability to understand that is also not my responsibility.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]
You told me I couldn’t read 127 comment in the nearly seven minutes between comments.
No I didn’t. I said that your claim was an obvious lie. You’re welcome to prove otherwise with evidence, but, given the body of your behavior here during this discussion, I’m certain you would lie in order to “win” or “score points” in this argument, regardless of how silly or pointless the lie. your entire comment history here represents a dishonest representation of yourself when convenient.
I did and had time to respond to you but you don’t believe me because you must read slower.
There’s that zero-sum worldview again, where the only way you could do better is if someone else does worse. That’s the zero-sum bias
Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people's tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case.[4] This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions.[5][6] In economics, "zero-sum fallacy" generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.
Do you often invent fantasies about strangers online when you’ve gambled foolishly on an argument you can’t win? Seems like a coping mechanism with very little payoff and a lot of toxicity.
There’s that amnesia again! I’ve provided evidence repeatedly. All you can do is sealion.
You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now
More personal attacks because you have no rational response.
being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.
Except when I read and responded to every single thing you said. Just because I used evidence to prove you wrong over and over and over again - and you ignored it every time - doesn’t mean I didn’t listen to you— it proves that I did.
I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.
Another coping mechanism fantasy you”ve invented; this didn’t happen. But, if your “beliefs” still hold that this happened, please link to the facts and evidence and so-called “logic”. This should be interesting considering that you don’t even understand how health insurance works, what it’s for, or the definition of the word “gambling”.
As I’ve said several times before: you’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict them.
Insurance of any sort is a gambling as Ned from The Simpsons proves in his quote from the 8th episode of the 8th season of The Simpsons.
Fictional characters in a cartoon are not a source of reliable, verifiable facts, especially regarding healthcare and/or economic advice. And, wow, if you’re telling me that you base your financial and healthcare decisions (not to mention your religious convictions) based on a line from The Simpsons, then don’t simultaneously claim that you’re making a rational argument based on logic and facts. “Ned from The Simpsons said it” is a claim so ridiculous it really proves how desperate you are to hold onto your “beliefs” in the face of facts, evidence, and actual logic.
Now, you’re free to disagree but you haven’t been able to disprove either of those facts that together form an air-tight case for what I’m saying.
It’s your responsibility to prove your claims, not for me to disprove them, and you haven’t done that at all. Oh, and some throwaway joke from a fictional cartoon - on its own - isn’t proof of anything other than that your “beliefs” have a fictional (and very silly) basis.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
No, you keep trying to change the subject, and I keep calling it out while staying on the subject of health insurance and the meaning of the word “gambling.” Again, blaming me for your words and actions.
You’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict you.
You were using straw man because you had no rational response to a discussion about health insurance.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Just because you ignore the facts and evidence does not mean that they aren’t there. Everyone else but you can see them, apparently. And I really don’t care whether you believe me or not. I only care that others don’t believe you.
And only you are convinced by your arguments. You, and a fictional cartoon named Ned.
somebody has made it this far to upvote my comments….
if you hadn’t gambled your health and well-being foolishly by not getting health insurance, you could afford to work through these troubling issues with a trained psychotherapist rather than… this
And, again, you make a personal attack because you have no rational response.
If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.